‘It’s a good day for bees – but the prospects are not so bright for those of us affected by the pesticides still used to treat our most basic foodstuffs.’
Photograph: Tobias Schwarz/AFP/Getty Images

There was good news this morning for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been calling on the government to endorse a ban on neonicotinoids, the main culprit for the precipitous decline in the world’s bee population. Michael Gove, the responsible government minister, has finally confirmed that the UK will support an extended ban against the use of these pesticides. It’s been a long time coming – and has taken years of effort from campaigners all over the UK. Make no mistake: this ban will do much to limit the damage done by these dangerous chemicals.

The evidence points in one direction – we must ban neonicotinoids | Michael Gove

Read more

But Gove’s new position isn’t a radical one. In fact, he’s just catching up with the 77% of the public who, in a recent poll, agreed that pesticides that harm bees and other pollinators should be completely banned. Although he claims that it is only now that the scientific evidence stacks up, there are many who would disagree. SumOfUs members have campaigned for a ban for years on the strength of scientific evidence, as have many others. Gove’s application of the precautionary principle is disappointingly late to the party.

In fact, the minister seems to be a part-time user of the precautionary principle at best. This morning, the UK voted to reauthorise glyphosate’s license at an EU committee (although the committee itself didn’t reach a final conclusion). Josie Cohen of the Pesticide Action Network explains, “There’s enough evidence showing that glyphosate causes cancer and damages the environment to get rid of it from our food and farms. It’s especially urgent because it’s found everywhere – one study found glyphosate and pesticides like it cropping up in 60% of bread sold in the UK.”

In short, it might be a good day for bees, but the prospects are not looking so bright for those of us hoping that the pesticides used to treat our most basic foodstuffs won’t ultimately be responsible for giving us a life-threatening illness.

There is no question that this decision on neonicotinoids is the right one, albeit delayed. And it may not be without political cost, as the big farmers that typically support the Conservatives find themselves confronting a shift in their farming practices. But for his renewed enthusiasm for environmental protection to look like more than political expediency, there is considerably more that he must do.

‘For Michael Gove’s renewed enthusiasm for environmental protection to look like more than political expediency, there is considerably more that he must do.’ Photograph: Rick Findler/PA

First, Gove must demonstrate that the UK will uphold high environmental protection standards whatever happens with Brexit. At the moment, it is hard to shake the image of the UK being dragged kicking and screaming along with the bolder environmentalists in the EU when it comes to prioritising our long-term environmental wellbeing over short-term profits and good relationships with the corporate giants producing the pesticides.

Gove could easily and robustly push back against this, if he wished to do so, by introducing the precautionary principle into UK law, via the European Union withdrawal bill, which returns to the House of Commons for debate next week. The necessary adjustments to make this possible have been proposed: now all that needs to happen is for the government to pass the legislation in its amended form. To do so would be a huge victory for the health of our environment and wildlife for generations to come.

UK will back total ban on bee-harming pesticides, Michael Gove reveals

Read more

The scandal of neonicotinoids’ continued use might be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the adverse side effects of our over-dependence on dangerous pesticides in agriculture. If the minister wants to safeguard the health of his voters and their children, he must do more than sluggishly ban the very worst offender. Instead, he must take a bold stance when confronted with similar evidence about other dangerous pesticides – and ensure the passage of legislation that will ensure his successors are required to do likewise.